Eagle1970

4 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

A bit of background on the Guam group based on what I have seen.  Lujan & Wolff, LLP seemed to have been offered a settlement in 2018 for their clients (I think in total 80 survivors).  They didn't take it and decided to go to trial.  Now, both the arch diocese AND BSA declared bankruptcy.  My guess ... whatever offer they had in the past was much, much larger than any TDP or even neutral payout they can expect.  Some of their lawyer's questions go into that history ... "remember when you gave us that offer.  Remember when you said x,y,z."  I'm sure she feels devastated for her clients, and I can see that pain, but at the same time, one had to know BSA was in financial trouble and factored that into the decision making.  

That was a bad roll of the dice.  Not one I would have chanced.

3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

TDP reference language, please? 

I'm referring only to the Mitigating Scaling Factors based on SOL. (p 189).  As you know, I'm not a legal scholar.  Nor am I represented by one.  But I do wonder how these factors can be imposed when windows are being challenged.

Mitigating Scaling Factor Ranges for Statutes of Limitation or Repose by State Legend Tier Scaling Factor Open 1.0 Gray 1 .50-.70 Gray 2 .30-.45 Gray 3 .10-.25 Closed .01-.10

Even with a strong case for tolling the SOL via fraudulent concealment or delayed discovery, survivors abused in Grey states max out at the top end of their scaled bracket, i.e. Grey 3 @ .25.  Should the scaling get another look?  The scaling lost logic to me after the NC ruling.  If other window states face similar constitutional issues OR have that potential, it would be questionable to treat them as open, when the window could be reversed.

19 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

I made a statement to you about a year ago that I felt all victims should share equally based on their abuse. I stand by that statement still. I honestly do not feel that as a victim and a survivor  like I have won a lottery. Those are the types of words that other posters would use to create divisions among survivors. 

I lived over 50 years with the scars of my abuse.  Had I been in an open state and compensated appropriately, it would have felt to me like I won the lottery, after so many years of not even being able to confront my abuser.  All that means to me is that I would suddenly receive a large amount of compensation along with justice.  No apologies from me.  I will not be impacted by an attempt to chastise or scold me.  Way too old for that.  If you can't handle dealing with someone who uses slightly different words than you would choose, that's on you.  Like I've said before, I am grateful I do not need the money because I'm not going to see any windfall in compensation, due to state law.   Those who do, solely because they live in a state that cares about the rights of the people over those of insurers and churches, are receiving a windfall or whatever word makes you happy.

4 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

Not really true. I never bought a ticket I was a victim I had no choice.

Never meant as absolute reality, as in a boy buys a ticket to be molested.  If you prefer to criticize my word, rather than understand my point, there is no need for me to contribute.

It is difficult to separate the reality of law from the reality of abuse.  When I say "morally wrong", I mean just that.  In an equitable world, BSA should vet the cases, throw them out or pay the $3500, and exit bankruptcy with a trust that equitably compensates victims based on its moral duty.  Paying some victims millions and some nearly nothing, then exiting bankruptcy like "ok, we took care of that" will never show BSA in a good light again.  Open state victims hit the lottery.  Those of us subjected to multiple or ongoing abuse, and in my case by a real actual BSA employee who had a "reputation" (who happen to be in closed states) will see little justice.  So, while I realize this settlement may be in line with the "Law", it is surely not in line with the moral obligation the BSA has to victims.

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

This is such a problematic area. Take a 60+ year old man abused at 8 while at a distant camp. He left left Scouting immediately thereafter may not now much of anything other than what happened to them and some of the setting. I've thought about this a great deal after I wrote something to the effect that, "surely you know where you lived, names of some of your fellow Scouts, and etc. That may be a small minority, it may be a goodly number. I really would like to know how many people manipulated this system, including attorneys and claims aggregators. They have abused the system and all of us abused as Scouts whether claimants or not. I take it as a personal affront and offense. I've thought about that a lot, too. 

I'm almost 66 and can remember most everything in my life, in detail.  I have a friend in his late 50's who can't remember last week.  It's frustrating to even try to converse.  So, I get it and there may be some in that situation.  But opportunists game most every mass tort.  And I'm confident, with all those commercials, this is no exception.  Hell, not a bad deal just for $3500, for an opportunist.

3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

My bet? We’ll never know. They will quietly sneak off the trail via the $3500 spur and go their merry way. There will be valid survivor claimants that exit stage left, as well, not wanting to deal with this any more. Clarity will elude us. 

And I wish anyone with a questionable claim would do exactly that.  The higher degree that claims are vetted (i.e. the greater the requested detail claimants will have to furnish) the more will opt for $3500.

5 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

I can's say as I understand you.  Could you explain? Thanks.

To me, it is morally wrong to pit victims against each other and give victims who were merely touched more money than victims who endured unspeakable horrors, based solely on the state where abuse occurred.  I understand that is how it is, but I find it reprehensible.

18 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Yup. I don't think the key votes move from reject to accept without the significant multiplier on the "high value" claims.

On the notion of high and low value claims, I saw my psychiatrist this week. Of course, we were talked about the case including the range of potential awards. I thought she was going to fall out of her chair, throw something and/or pull out her hair. She was aghast. I know, I know. There's no money. 55,000+/- of us are Shades of Gray and should be happy to get something rather than nothing. Forgetting that, this is how people in the real world, not to mention those who work with trauma patients every day, feel when they hear about the case. High rollers get access to the high value. Mr. B is not happy.

PS - I don't know if the high entry fee mini-trial is the right thing or not. It certainly is a creative and expedient way to accommodate the disgruntled open state folk. All I know  is how I feel. Right now, it's pretty much like I wasted two years of premature hair loss, stomach lining, sleep and relative peace of mind. Likely my own fault. 

I empathize and agree regarding the value of "awards".  Clearly, open state claimants are going to get a large portion of the pool, which I continue to believe is criminal (not in the legal sense, rather the moral).  One stipulation though, regarding shades of Gray.... I'd sure rather be in Gray 1 than my happy home of Gray 3.  The whole Gray scale drives me to drink.  You are either closed or open.  Gray 1,2,3 classification is arbitrary, and I'm sure there were cases where it was a coin toss between the categories.

Would anyone venture a guess on time frame?  Do all independent reviews need completion before payments are made?

3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

My Guess

35% will take the $3500

60% will take TDP

5% will take neutral (heavy number of these will be the 2000 - present claimants)

 

Should this plan prevail, we will need good information to evaluate TDP.  I have decent documentation so will likely go that route.  But, the final matrix should allow a claimant to evaluate their outcome with some degree of accuracy.  Your guesstimates are probably close, though some are going to have to see what the questionnaire involves, since it is under oath.  If it's not very detailed, more may go that route.  If they require a lot of information (as they should), I can see more taking the $3500.

6 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

How many of the 5000 pro se claimants will be doing this? Odds?

 

I'm going to be generous and say about 3, and I won't be one. 

Having just finished reading the text, it looks to me that the purpose is to steer only the strongest cases into independent review, thereby settling the vast majority through the main channel.  Actually, just the $20k will accomplish that.  Most survivors won't want to part with $20k with risk and I would have to believe that law firms are a bit reluctant to extend a lot of $20k checks since many outcomes may be 40% of $3500, which won't cover even the basics.

In the end, the greatest factor in settlement value will be state law.  If you were abused in a state where survivors rights are prioritized, you may be in the tall corn.  If not, the state and this process have dealt a great injustice to victims. 

I'm aging and will get by fine without the money.  So, I am not bitter for myself, as the extent of my abuse was a very unpleasant one-week period at camp, perpetrated by a Boy Scout employee.  But I am bitter for those who endured extended and egregious abuse that occurred in a closed state.  As a result, they will receive a fraction of the settlement available to those with lesser abuse history in an open state.  And that, my friends, infuriates me.

So is it safe to say few victims in closed or nearly closed states would see benefit from forking out $20k?  I don't have benefit of an attorney, so advice on this topic is welcomed.

22 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

See? This is the sort of dark, sarcastic humor we so desperately need! It shouldn't be funny, but it is. I am grateful for the smile.

Fresh in my mind, of course, as just last week I received exactly that settlement.

By the time this is finished, we will end up settling for two years of free credit monitoring.  smh

3 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

It is my understanding that they took the action of eliminating the criminal sol due to dna testing and that old cases can now be prosecuted.  If I'm wrong, I'll be glad to hand over my law license (which I never had).

There goes my license....

"While legal experts don’t think the new law would apply to past crimes, they believe this change is a move in the right direction and should even go one step further."

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

Asking for clarification.  I'll post my understanding to see if it's right.   

Civil and criminal SOL changes are very different.  US Supreme Court decisions establish a line saying that civil SOLs can be retroactive; thus BSA's situation.  At the same time, the US supreme court says removing criminal SOLs is blocked by U. S. Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause.  Essentially, civil SOL changes can be retroactive, but criminal can't be.  

So, Missouri can't prosecute your abuser unless the abuse happened after the SOL removal or within the previously standing SOL time frame.  

 

It is my understanding that they took the action of eliminating the criminal sol due to dna testing and that old cases can now be prosecuted.  If I'm wrong, I'll be glad to hand over my law license (which I never had).

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Or, there may be survivors who themselves are split in two, like moi. Assuming the TCC and other objectors have extracted extra cash and concessions from BSA and the Coalition folk, and the SWG and TCC have made significant gains on YP, I think I can let this move forward in my heart and mind. However, I am close to signing with state court counsel to hedge my bet in the event either LCs or COs don't make it across the finish line. I'm too deep into this with too much knowledge about BSA's history (not to mention a 140+/- page POC file) to walk away and let a possible case die. How will it play out? Let's send an envelope to Carnac the Magnificent. (Nod to Johnny C.)  

Part of my acceptance is driven by the fact that Missouri is unlikely to offer much haven for a civil claim.  Though the state did remove the SoL for criminal csa, there is no possibility I am going through the pain so the state can possibly have its way with my abuser, while I cannot.  And with just my word and some 50-year-old 3rd party testimony from old men, it's quite possible he would still skate.  How hopeless would I feel then?  And the years it can take to weave a case through state court, which is possibly moved to federal court, with my most personal details for all to see--my heartbeat is rising just thinking about it.

So for me, it's nearly over.  I look forward to one more event: my personal interview before they slash my claim by 90% for SoL.  In that moment, I will receive my only justice in 50 years of living with this.  Once and for all, he will not have gotten away with it.  And finally, whatever check I receive, be it $50 I will use it meaningfully.

For you and others in a similar position, I wish all the best.  Hopefully your legislature is more concerned with victimized citizens, rather than profits of insurers or protecting the Parishes against former alter boys.  Stay strong and don't let them destroy you.

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

 

Sound like a deal is afoot. Moving the status conference seems to indicate the same.

 

I'm sure all won't agree.  But I am morphing into acceptance.  We are all getting older....in my case, fairly quickly.  Before the BK, many of us had decided either to leave the whole matter faded with the time that had passed or we had no case, due to SoL (or both).  We have been through various degrees of reliving our abuse.  That has not been good for our mental health, especially combined with the other fun things going on around us.  Dwelling on this is not how I want to spend my sunset years.  BSA was negligent, without a doubt.  My abuser is a piece, without a doubt.  We're not going to get much compensation, but what we do get sends the message that we have at least been heard.  Fix it for future boys and then it's just time to move on.  JMHO

3 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

I don’t believe scouting is risky. I believe scouting is meaningfully save. So, maybe the discussion should start there.

Barry 

Perhaps safer then when the BSA employee was abusing us back in the 70's.  I would hope so.  But it is not meaningfully safe to put boys in isolated situations with men.  So maybe we should start there.  No one on one in non-public settings.  Ever.  Period.

Would someone clarify the meaning of the "opt out" and "$3500"?  If the $3500 box was checked, are those basically settled out thereby reducing the number of claimants?  Or would they take $3500 and remain in play somehow?  

17 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I am unable to access it, if this is a link. I am a “cotton-headed ninnymuggins,” however so that may be in play. (Nod to Buddy.)

Nope, not you this time😁.  Just introduced last week, the only information is in summary form.  It is part of a larger bill.